True. The darn side of this is that digital cameras are very expensive. Any new technological conquest means buying a new camera. Film users can just buy new film! The film industry never really wnated to compete. Kodak started making cameras for Nikon and Canon lenses - in the 5-6K USD range, which will not sell to the man in the street or to photo enthusiasts (us). Better film/film bodies/imaging processes might.
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 1. februar 2005 05:37 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Film Still Best for Many Applications? (was Ruminations... ) William Robb wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" > Subject: RE: Film Still Best for Many Applications? (was Ruminations... ) > > >> Today I accidentally put an "old" (April 2004) CD in my computer. That >> was a >> Irfan View slide show, featuring scanned shots made with a MZ-S. They >> really >> looked very good! It made me wonder, that if the film manufacturers >> had made >> it possible for me to get film scanned to high quality files, rather fast >> (two - three days) at a reasonable price, film might have been able to >> survive quite a bit longer. I - for one - wouldn't have gone to >> digital just >> yet, if I had more obvious/better scanning options, than to buy a 500 USD >> (Epson 3200) scanner and use way to much time getting mediocre results. > > > I think film's demise is (was) made certain, not by any specific > technology, but by a combination of factors. > The biggest factor, to me, is the inability to get good traditional > prints made by the photo lab industry, making an inferior technology > (digital capture and output) look way better than it is. > I would add to that: In order to get good prints made from film, you have to put more work or $$ into it than most (not all) people are willing vs the quick and satisfying results you can get from digital. > William Robb >
